|
Post by aeson on Nov 24, 2021 9:07:48 GMT -6
We need to have a way to cheat on treaties to get around the limits like the Japanese did with the Washington Naval Treaty to build the Yamato and Musashi. Also if a treaty is in effect limiting us to 8in or smaller guns and less than 12000 tons of displacement we shouldn't be able to get events from our country leader saying "build us battleships!" I'm over here like"Hur! Dur! The treaty you signed when I said don't sign anything binding says I can't build anything bigger than a very small Armored Cruiser!" Most nations are allowed to build to 110% of the treat limits - if memory serves only the USA and the UK have to follow this to the letter. Anyone with a government type of Liberal Democracy has to adhere strictly to the treaty limit; anyone with any other government type can exceed displacement limits by up to 10%. The USA, UK, and France all start with the Liberal Democracy government type, though it is possible that they could cease to have that government type during the game. There are several different legal types of CAs in the release version, and while none of them to my knowledge can carry an armor belt thicker than 9.5" several of them can carry 11" - or heavier - guns.
"Conventional" CAs - ships more or less corresponding to typical WWII-era heavy cruisers and predreadnought-era first class or armored cruisers - can carry main guns up to 10" caliber, and if they are smaller than 20,000 tons then their belt armor can be up to 9.5" thick while if they are 20,000 tons or larger then their belt armor is limited to 7.5". If these are particularly slow, then they may also be subject to more stringent limits on belt armor in order to avoid classification as battleships (B, not BB).
Tsukuba- and Deutschland-type CAs can carry heavy guns, but are subject to certain restrictions - generally speaking, the Tsukuba type is speed-limited while the Deutschland type is displacement-limited, but there are some other restrictions. Tsukuba-type cruisers can have up to seven guns in two turrets at design speeds not higher than 22 knots, three guns in two turrets at a design speed of 23 knots, and one gun at higher design speeds; Deutschland-type cruisers can have up to seven or eight guns (depending on belt armor - I think it's 3.5" or less belt armor for 8 guns) of any caliber in two turrets if their design displacement does not exceed 10,000 tons and can have up to six or maybe seven 11" guns if they're larger than 10,000 but not larger than 12,000 tons. Both of these types of CA are also subject to some additional belt armor restrictions - I think Tsukuba-type cruisers can't have more than 6" or in some cases 5.5" belt armor while Deutschland-type cruisers can't have more than 7.5", but I could be misrecollecting the exact limits.
|
|
|
Post by umbaretz on Nov 24, 2021 14:29:46 GMT -6
Destroyer Leader perhaps? Yup. Though orthodoxly it should be DL.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Nov 25, 2021 10:58:33 GMT -6
Will be possible to lock the alliances so we can have historical alliances?
|
|
|
Post by navalperson on Nov 25, 2021 13:05:36 GMT -6
Two questions about the dlc are missile magazine’s going to be added like how we can set the number of ammunition for main battery? Second are carrier aircraft going to be capable of carrying missiles for strikes during the jet age?
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Nov 25, 2021 14:02:12 GMT -6
I can answer the former, the missiles tab in the ship designer has an "Edit reloads" button,so, I presume, yes.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Nov 25, 2021 16:11:18 GMT -6
Two questions about the dlc are missile magazine’s going to be added like how we can set the number of ammunition for main battery? Second are carrier aircraft going to be capable of carrying missiles for strikes during the jet age? The short answer is 'yes' to both questions...however missile magazines have an absolute maximum capacity due to the far larger space requirements along with certain issues related to complexity of the systems.
|
|
zoomar
Junior Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by zoomar on Nov 26, 2021 21:08:41 GMT -6
Id like to see land airbases and airship bases have more impact on the game than merely a place where aircraft and airships fly from to scout and occasionally attack vessels in tactical situations. Id like to see at least two modifications: 1. in the tactical mode, why not let the player organize and launch airstrikes from airbases on enemy ships or land bases using the same method as for carrier ops. 2: ASW benefits in the background. Aircraft (both airplanes and especially airships)were very effective in the ASW role, particularly in spotting submarines. Id like to see air bases and airship bases have a positive benefit on sinking or damaging subs in the AI messages that pop up, the more airbases a player builds or expands, the more enemy subs the AI determines they sink - or contribute to sinking.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Nov 26, 2021 22:30:09 GMT -6
Id like to see land airbases and airship bases have more impact on the game than merely a place where aircraft and airships fly from to scout and occasionally attack vessels in tactical situations. Id like to see at least two modifications: 1. in the tactical mode, why not let the player organize and launch airstrikes from airbases on enemy ships or land bases using the same method as for carrier ops. 2: ASW benefits in the background. Aircraft (both airplanes and especially airships)were very effective in the ASW role, particularly in spotting submarines. Id like to see air bases and airship bases have a positive benefit on sinking or damaging subs in the AI messages that pop up, the more airbases a player builds or expands, the more enemy subs the AI determines they sink - or contribute to sinking. During playtesting we tried playing the game with the player having control of the land airbases, but we found it to be too overwhelming, even for those of us who thrive on micromanagement. The decision was made to turn it all over to the AI. It was painful to lose control of all those assets, but also liberating. Managing them was quite a burden. The game was definitely more fun when we didn't have to worry about them and could concentrate on the naval battle. Of course, it is not the number of airbases that count but the number of aircraft at those bases capable of executing ASW missions. You may not be aware that PBs have a fairly potent ASW ability. The right side of the ASW field, shown when you are at war, indicates the strength of the ASW effort from your PBs. My air fleet is typically composed of about 20% PBs to take advantage of this ability, and of course, for search purposes.
|
|
|
Post by tbshift on Nov 27, 2021 8:17:44 GMT -6
Get the AI to build decent ships in the late 1910s and early 1920s, instead of just <20,000 8x12" battleships that are easy to sink.
|
|
w2c
Full Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by w2c on Nov 27, 2021 14:17:56 GMT -6
Better templates would be nice, but we also have a few mods which help in this regard. I'd prefer they tweak some of the stuff those mods rely on so that you can use those templates without the AI breaking the rules all the time. It's still not the biggest priority in the world for me, but would definitely be a nice addition to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Nov 27, 2021 14:28:31 GMT -6
Get the AI to build decent ships in the late 1910s and early 1920s, instead of just <20,000 8x12" battleships that are easy to sink. use the available mods:
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Nov 28, 2021 2:53:38 GMT -6
Id like to see land airbases and airship bases have more impact on the game than merely a place where aircraft and airships fly from to scout and occasionally attack vessels in tactical situations. Id like to see at least two modifications: 1. in the tactical mode, why not let the player organize and launch airstrikes from airbases on enemy ships or land bases using the same method as for carrier ops. 2: ASW benefits in the background. Aircraft (both airplanes and especially airships)were very effective in the ASW role, particularly in spotting submarines. Id like to see air bases and airship bases have a positive benefit on sinking or damaging subs in the AI messages that pop up, the more airbases a player builds or expands, the more enemy subs the AI determines they sink - or contribute to sinking. During playtesting we tried playing the game with the player having control of the land airbases, but we found it to be too overwhelming, even for those of us who thrive on micromanagement. The decision was made to turn it all over to the AI. It was painful to lose control of all those assets, but also liberating. Managing them was quite a burden. The game was definitely more fun when we didn't have to worry about them and could concentrate on the naval battle. Of course, it is not the number of airbases that count but the number of aircraft at those bases capable of executing ASW missions. You may not be aware that PBs have a fairly potent ASW ability. The right side of the ASW field, shown when you are at war, indicates the strength of the ASW effort from your PBs. My air fleet is typically composed of about 20% PBs to take advantage of this ability, and of course, for search purposes. If I could make a suggestion, why not let the player turn automation of land airbases on and off "on the fly," the same as you can with divisions in Captain mode? That way, it's up to the player to decide how much micro is too much micro.
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Nov 28, 2021 8:04:13 GMT -6
Will be possible to lock the alliances so we can have historical alliances? Bump!
|
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Nov 28, 2021 9:11:27 GMT -6
During playtesting we tried playing the game with the player having control of the land airbases, but we found it to be too overwhelming, even for those of us who thrive on micromanagement. The decision was made to turn it all over to the AI. It was painful to lose control of all those assets, but also liberating. Managing them was quite a burden. The game was definitely more fun when we didn't have to worry about them and could concentrate on the naval battle. Of course, it is not the number of airbases that count but the number of aircraft at those bases capable of executing ASW missions. You may not be aware that PBs have a fairly potent ASW ability. The right side of the ASW field, shown when you are at war, indicates the strength of the ASW effort from your PBs. My air fleet is typically composed of about 20% PBs to take advantage of this ability, and of course, for search purposes. If I could make a suggestion, why not let the player turn automation of land airbases on and off "on the fly," the same as you can with divisions in Captain mode? That way, it's up to the player to decide how much micro is too much micro. I think there’s a better way here... I don’t want that level of micro, if you’re saying that we should have full control of an airbase like we have with a carrier. There’s a huge distinction between having an airbase available to you in the Pacific area and another to have TEN bases to manage in the Mediterranean. What a slog. It would turn into a sticky slow molasses plodding exercise in notification clicking hell that I wouldn’t want to experience. What I WOULD like to see, however, is a general level of control over what each base is doing during the engagement, something which we only get control over during the START of a mission with the choice of whether all bases will be used to attack other bases or sea assets. Let’s expand this to allow retasking of bases during the mission and provide this level of choice control: 1.) Attack nearby enemy airfields 2.) Attack nearby enemy sea assets 3.) Provide CAP to (choose division) or even combinations of those. Something like that. Anything, really, to give us more control over what a base does DURING the mission without causing us to micro it would be really nice.
|
|
jatzi
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Post by jatzi on Nov 30, 2021 0:59:12 GMT -6
Has airbases attacking other airbases been toned down? I've theorized for awhile that it has been but I'm finally asking. Because I remember playing as France in a 1920 start in a fairly early version of the game and the air war was constant and insane in the Med while fighting the Italians. It was crazy. Now in the last Italian playthrough I did, starting at like 1.19 or 1.20 and extending to 1.24 by the time I finally finished it, I think I saw land bases attack each other once. Did you guys do something to tone it down, make it less likely?
If you did would you consider in the DLC going back on what it was before, making it an option anyways for the player? I quite enjoyed it, yeah it slowed the battle down but I did not mind one iota. It was cool. And it meant my early fighters actually saw action! It is hard to get good carrier strikes against other carriers before the like the 40s. And even if you do before that they're not going to be that effective, nor will the CAP be that effective. Which means my bombers and fighters don't see a lot of action until fairly late in the game, 40s and 50s mostly. Maybe late 30s too but not all the time. Now you can get some crazy carrier fights in the Med, major engagements are just more common there than in the pacific. But still, I really enjoyed it the AI airwar in the background.
I know a lot of people didn't like it though. I remember seeing loads of people on here complaining about how much of a slog it was to play in the Med. But I really didn't mind. Just like people are saying give additional levels of control over land bases above this if they want it I'd say give the player the option to have that AI craziness on too. If the game were to track aircraft performance a bit, history of different models and number of kills/losses and whatnot it'd be real cool to see stats from a major airwar fought in the background of naval fights.
Another point. All this means nothing if the answer is no you didn't tone it down lol. But assuming you actually did tweak it, another point for the craziness was that it made the battles feel less like they take place in a vacuum. Like a lot of the time big battles happen and it feels like they're the only part of the war. Land combat isn't really modeled so thats the major reason why of course. But having the AI bases duke it out while you fight a cruiser battle off by Rhoades really made it feel like, at times, there were other parts of the war happening. Could just be me, I'm totally assigning more meaning than there actually is there. But eh, imagination ya know, makes things better. An option though since lots of people didn't like it
|
|